Prisoners of Privatization Ideology

Sure, governments should contract with private business to conduct public services if the businesses can do the job as well, or better, and at lower cost. No argument there. But governments must also take care that they they do not lease their responsibility to the lowest bidder without being certain that the public trust is fully protected.

So it is that California prison officials should be commended for pulling the plug on their contract with a private firm that was hired to transport prisoners from other states to California. The firm had been accused of failing to care for prisoners properly during exceedingly long cross-country trips.

Director of Corrections James Rowland said that he is canceling the exclusive contract with a Tennessee-based firm because the state is not able to oversee the firm’s performance adequately. The idea of hiring the company to save money was a worthy one, Rowland told a special legislative committee, but he concluded that the transportation of prisoners is a governmental responsibility that should not be turned over to private enterprise.

The company saved money by driving extradited prisoners or parole violators back to California; the state had used commercial airline transportation. Local law enforcement officials complained that it sometimes took as long as a month for the company to deliver the prisoners and that the prisoners often were deprived sufficient food, clothing or the opportunity to bathe.

Rowland did not join in the criticism of the company and the firm’s manager claimed that it had made a considerable investment to improve its operations to meet state standards. But Rowland made the correct decision that this is not the sort of governmental function that suits itself to privatization. Other state and local government officials should use similar good judgment when they are forced to balance public responsibility against a modest budget savings.